A Talk With Defenders of Economism

Published:Iskra, No. 12, December 6, 1901.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1961,

      Moscow,Volume 5,

      pages313-320.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Belowwe publish in full, as received from one of our
	representatives,

“ALetter to the Russian Social-Democratic Press.“Inresponse to the suggestion made by our comrades in exile that
	we express our views onIskra, we have resolved to state the
	reasons for our disagreement with that organ.“Whilerecognising that the appearance of a special
	Social-Democratic organ specially devoted to questions of the political
	struggle is entirely opportune, we do not think thatIskra,
	which has under taken this task, has performed it satisfactorily. The
	principal drawback of the paper, which runs like a scarlet thread
	through its columns, and which is the cause of all its other defects,
	large and small, is the exaggerated importance it attaches to the
	influence which the ideologists of the movement exert upon its various
	tendencies. At the same time,Iskragives too little
	consideration to the material elements and the material environment of
	the movement, whose interaction creates a definite type of labour
	movement and determines its path, the path from which the ideologists,
	despite all their efforts, are incapable of diverting it, even if they
	are inspired by the finest theories and programmes.“Thisdefect becomes most marked whenIskrais compared withYuzhny

	Rabochy,[1]which, likeIskra, raises the banner of
      political struggle but connects it with the preceding phase of the
      South-Russian working-class movement. Such a presentation of the question
      is alien toIskra.It has set itself the task of fanning ’the
      spark into a great

      conflagration’,[A play on the wordIskra,
	which means “spark”.—Tr.]

      but it forgets that necessary inflammable material and favourable
      environmental conditions are required for such a task. In dissociating
      itself completely from the ’Economists’,Iskraloses sight of the
      fact that their activity prepared the ground for the workers’
      participation in the February and March events, upon whichIskralays so much stress and, to all appearances, greatly exaggerates. While
      criticising adversely the activity of the Social-Democrats of the late
      nineties,Iskraignores the fact that at that time the conditions
      werelacking for any work other than the struggle for minor demands, and
      ignores also the enormous educational significance of that
      struggle.Iskrais entirely wrong and unhistorical in its
      appraisement of that period and of the direction of the activities of the
      Russian Social Democrats at the time, in identifying their tactics with
      those of

      Zubatov,[2]in failing to differentiate between the ’struggle for minor demands’,
      which widens and deepens the labour movement, and ’minor concessions’,
      whose purpose was to paralyse every struggle and every movement.“Thoroughlyimbued with the sectarian intolerance so characteristic
      of ideologists in the infantile period of social movements,Iskrais ready to brand every disagreement with it, not only as a departure from
      Social-Democratic principles, but as desertion to the camp of the
      enemy. Of such a nature is its extremely indecent and most reprehensible
      attack uponRabochaya Mysl, contained in the article on Zubatov,
      in which the latter’s success among a certain section of the working class
      was attributed to that publication. Negatively disposed to the other
      Social-Democratic organisations, which differ from it in their views on
      the progress and the tasks of the Russian labour movement,Iskra,
      in the heat of controversy, at times forgets the truth and, picking on
      isolated unfortunate expressions, attributes to its opponents views they
      do not hold, emphasises points of disagreement that are frequently of
      little material importance, and obstinately ignores the numerous points of
      contact in views. We have in mindIskras attitude towardsRabocheye Dyelo.“Iskra’sexcessive predilection for controversy is due primarily
      to its exaggerating the role of ’ideology’ (programmes, theories...) in
      the movement, and is partly an echo of the internecine squabbles that have
      flared up among Russian political exiles in Western Europe, of which they
      have hastened to inform the world in a number of polemical pamphlets and
      articles. In our opinion, these disagreements exercise almost no influence
      upon the actual course of the Russian Social-Democratic movement, except
      perhaps to damage it by bringing an undesirable schism into the midst of
      the comrades working in Russia. For this reason, we cannot but express our
      disapproval ofIskra’sfervent polemics, particularly when it
      oversteps the bounds of decency.“Thisbasic drawback ofIskrais also the cause of its
      inconsistency on the question of the attitude of Social-Democracy to the
      various social classes and tendencies. By theoretical reasoning,Iskrasolved the problem of the immediate transition to the
      struggle against absolutism. In all probability it senses the difficulty
      of such a task for the workers under the present state of affairs but
      lacking the patience to wait until the workers will have gathered
      sufficient forces for this struggle,Iskrabegins to seek allies
      in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals. In this quest, it not
      infrequently departs from the class point of view, obscures class
      antagonisms, and puts into the forefront the common nature of the
      discontent with the government, although the causes and the degree of the
      discontent vary considerably among the ’allies Such, for example, isIskra’sattitude towards the Zemstvo. It tries to fan into flames
      of political struggle the Zemstvo’s Frondian demonstrations, which are
      frequently called forth by the fact that the governmentpays more attention to the protection of industry than to the agrarian
      aspirations of the Zemstvo

      gentry,[Lenin’s reference is to the liberal landlords,
	members of the Zemstvo Boards.—Tr.]

      and it promises the nobles that are dissatisfied with the governments sops
      the assistance of the working class, but it does not say a word about the
      class antagonism that exists between these social strata. It may be
      conceded that it is admissible to say that the Zemstvo is being roused and
      that it is an element fighting the government; but this must be stated so
      clearly and distinctly that no doubt will be left as to the character of a
      possible agreement with such elements.Iskra, however, approaches
      the question of our attitude towards the Zemstvo in a way that to our mind
      can only dim class-consciousness; for in this matter, like the advocates
      of liberalism and of the various cultural endeavoursIskragoes
      against the fundamental task of Social-Democratic literature, which is,
      not to obscure class antagonism, but to criticise the bourgeois system and
      explain the class interests that divide it. Such, too, isIskra’sattitude towards the student movement. And yet in other articlesIskrasharply condemns all ’compromise’ and defends, for
      instance, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists.“Weshall refrain from dwelling uponIskra’sminor defects
      and blunders, but in conclusion we think it our duty to observe that we do
      not in the least desire by our criticism to belittle the significance
      whichIskracan acquire, nor do we close our eyes to its
      merits. We welcome it as a political, Social-Democratic newspaper in
      Russia. We regard one of its greatest merits to be its able explanation of
      the question of terror to which it devoted a number of timely
      articles. Finally, we can not refrain from noting the exemplary, literary
      style in whichIskrais written, a thing so rare in illegal
      publications, its regular appearance, and the abundance of fresh and
      interesting material which it publishes.“Agroup of comrades”September1901."

“ALetter to the Russian Social-Democratic Press.

“Inresponse to the suggestion made by our comrades in exile that
	we express our views onIskra, we have resolved to state the
	reasons for our disagreement with that organ.

“Whilerecognising that the appearance of a special
	Social-Democratic organ specially devoted to questions of the political
	struggle is entirely opportune, we do not think thatIskra,
	which has under taken this task, has performed it satisfactorily. The
	principal drawback of the paper, which runs like a scarlet thread
	through its columns, and which is the cause of all its other defects,
	large and small, is the exaggerated importance it attaches to the
	influence which the ideologists of the movement exert upon its various
	tendencies. At the same time,Iskragives too little
	consideration to the material elements and the material environment of
	the movement, whose interaction creates a definite type of labour
	movement and determines its path, the path from which the ideologists,
	despite all their efforts, are incapable of diverting it, even if they
	are inspired by the finest theories and programmes.

“Thisdefect becomes most marked whenIskrais compared withYuzhny

	Rabochy,[1]which, likeIskra, raises the banner of
      political struggle but connects it with the preceding phase of the
      South-Russian working-class movement. Such a presentation of the question
      is alien toIskra.It has set itself the task of fanning ’the
      spark into a great

      conflagration’,[A play on the wordIskra,
	which means “spark”.—Tr.]

      but it forgets that necessary inflammable material and favourable
      environmental conditions are required for such a task. In dissociating
      itself completely from the ’Economists’,Iskraloses sight of the
      fact that their activity prepared the ground for the workers’
      participation in the February and March events, upon whichIskralays so much stress and, to all appearances, greatly exaggerates. While
      criticising adversely the activity of the Social-Democrats of the late
      nineties,Iskraignores the fact that at that time the conditions
      werelacking for any work other than the struggle for minor demands, and
      ignores also the enormous educational significance of that
      struggle.Iskrais entirely wrong and unhistorical in its
      appraisement of that period and of the direction of the activities of the
      Russian Social Democrats at the time, in identifying their tactics with
      those of

      Zubatov,[2]in failing to differentiate between the ’struggle for minor demands’,
      which widens and deepens the labour movement, and ’minor concessions’,
      whose purpose was to paralyse every struggle and every movement.

“Thoroughlyimbued with the sectarian intolerance so characteristic
      of ideologists in the infantile period of social movements,Iskrais ready to brand every disagreement with it, not only as a departure from
      Social-Democratic principles, but as desertion to the camp of the
      enemy. Of such a nature is its extremely indecent and most reprehensible
      attack uponRabochaya Mysl, contained in the article on Zubatov,
      in which the latter’s success among a certain section of the working class
      was attributed to that publication. Negatively disposed to the other
      Social-Democratic organisations, which differ from it in their views on
      the progress and the tasks of the Russian labour movement,Iskra,
      in the heat of controversy, at times forgets the truth and, picking on
      isolated unfortunate expressions, attributes to its opponents views they
      do not hold, emphasises points of disagreement that are frequently of
      little material importance, and obstinately ignores the numerous points of
      contact in views. We have in mindIskras attitude towardsRabocheye Dyelo.

“Iskra’sexcessive predilection for controversy is due primarily
      to its exaggerating the role of ’ideology’ (programmes, theories...) in
      the movement, and is partly an echo of the internecine squabbles that have
      flared up among Russian political exiles in Western Europe, of which they
      have hastened to inform the world in a number of polemical pamphlets and
      articles. In our opinion, these disagreements exercise almost no influence
      upon the actual course of the Russian Social-Democratic movement, except
      perhaps to damage it by bringing an undesirable schism into the midst of
      the comrades working in Russia. For this reason, we cannot but express our
      disapproval ofIskra’sfervent polemics, particularly when it
      oversteps the bounds of decency.

“Thisbasic drawback ofIskrais also the cause of its
      inconsistency on the question of the attitude of Social-Democracy to the
      various social classes and tendencies. By theoretical reasoning,Iskrasolved the problem of the immediate transition to the
      struggle against absolutism. In all probability it senses the difficulty
      of such a task for the workers under the present state of affairs but
      lacking the patience to wait until the workers will have gathered
      sufficient forces for this struggle,Iskrabegins to seek allies
      in the ranks of the liberals and intellectuals. In this quest, it not
      infrequently departs from the class point of view, obscures class
      antagonisms, and puts into the forefront the common nature of the
      discontent with the government, although the causes and the degree of the
      discontent vary considerably among the ’allies Such, for example, isIskra’sattitude towards the Zemstvo. It tries to fan into flames
      of political struggle the Zemstvo’s Frondian demonstrations, which are
      frequently called forth by the fact that the governmentpays more attention to the protection of industry than to the agrarian
      aspirations of the Zemstvo

      gentry,[Lenin’s reference is to the liberal landlords,
	members of the Zemstvo Boards.—Tr.]

      and it promises the nobles that are dissatisfied with the governments sops
      the assistance of the working class, but it does not say a word about the
      class antagonism that exists between these social strata. It may be
      conceded that it is admissible to say that the Zemstvo is being roused and
      that it is an element fighting the government; but this must be stated so
      clearly and distinctly that no doubt will be left as to the character of a
      possible agreement with such elements.Iskra, however, approaches
      the question of our attitude towards the Zemstvo in a way that to our mind
      can only dim class-consciousness; for in this matter, like the advocates
      of liberalism and of the various cultural endeavoursIskragoes
      against the fundamental task of Social-Democratic literature, which is,
      not to obscure class antagonism, but to criticise the bourgeois system and
      explain the class interests that divide it. Such, too, isIskra’sattitude towards the student movement. And yet in other articlesIskrasharply condemns all ’compromise’ and defends, for
      instance, the intolerant conduct of the Guesdists.

“Weshall refrain from dwelling uponIskra’sminor defects
      and blunders, but in conclusion we think it our duty to observe that we do
      not in the least desire by our criticism to belittle the significance
      whichIskracan acquire, nor do we close our eyes to its
      merits. We welcome it as a political, Social-Democratic newspaper in
      Russia. We regard one of its greatest merits to be its able explanation of
      the question of terror to which it devoted a number of timely
      articles. Finally, we can not refrain from noting the exemplary, literary
      style in whichIskrais written, a thing so rare in illegal
      publications, its regular appearance, and the abundance of fresh and
      interesting material which it publishes.

“Agroup of comrades”

September1901."

Inthe first place, we should like to say that we cordially welcome the
      straightforwardness and frankness of the authors of this letter. It is
      high time to stop playing at hide-and-seek, concealing one’s Economist“credo”(as is done by a section of the Odessa
      Committee from which the “politicians” broke away), or
      declaring, as if in mockery of the truth, that at the present time
      “not a single Social-Democratic organisation is guilty of the sin of
      Economism” (Two Conferences, p. 32, published byRabocheye Dyelo).And now to the matter.

Theauthors of the letter fall into the very same fundamental error as
      that made byRabocheye Dyelo(see particularly issue
      No. 10). They are muddled over the questionof the relations between the “material” (spontaneous, asRabocheye Dyeloputs it) elements of the movement and the
      ideological (conscious, operating “according to plan”). They fail to
      understand that the “ideologist” is worthy of the name only
      when heprecedesthe spontaneous movement, points out the road,
      and is able ahead of all others to solve all the theoretical, political,
      tactical, and organisational questions which the “material
      elements” of the movement spontaneously encounter. In order truly to
      give “consideration to the material elements of the movement”,
      one must view them critically, one must be able to point out the dangers
      and defects of spontaneity andto elevateit to the level of
      consciousness, To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically
      conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by
      the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth
      that the conscious elementparticipatesin this interaction and
      in the determination of the path. Catholic and monarchist labour unions in
      Europe are also an inevitable result of the interaction of environment and
      elements, but it was the consciousness of priests and Zubatovs and not
      that of socialists that participated in this interaction. The theoretical
      views of the authors of this letter (like those ofRabocheye
      Dyelo) do not represent Marxism, but that parody of it which is
      nursed by our “Critics” and Bernsteinians who are unable to
      connect spontaneous evolution with conscious revolutionary activity.

Inthe prevailing circumstances of today this profound theoretical error
      inevitably leads to a great tactical error, which has brought incalculable
      damage to Russian Social- Democracy. It is a fact that the spontaneous
      awakening of the masses of the workers and (due to their influence) of
      other social strata has been taking place with astonishing rapidity during
      the past few years. The “material elements” of the movement
      have grown enormously even as compared with 1898, butthe conscious
      leaders(the Social-Democrats)lag behind this growth.This
      is the main cause of the crisis which Russian Social-Democracy is now
      experiencing. The mass (spontaneous) movement lacks
      “ideologists” sufficiently trained theoretically to be proof
      against all vacillations; it lacks leaders with such a broad political
      outlook, suchrevolutionary energy, and such organisational talent as to create a
      militant political party on the basis of the new movement.

Allthis in itself would, however, be but half the evil. Theoretical
      knowledge, political experience, and organising ability are things that
      can be acquired. If only the desire exists to study and acquire these
      qualities. But since the end of 1897, particularly since the autumn of
      1898, there have come forward in the Russian Social-Democratic movement
      individuals and periodicals that not only close their eyes to this
      drawback, but that have declared it to be a special virtue, that have
      elevated the worship of, and servility towards, spontaneity to the dignity
      of a theory and are preaching that Social-Democrats must not march ahead
      of the movement, but should drag along atthe tail-end.(These
      periodicals include not onlyRabochaya Mysl, butRabocheye
      Dyelo, which began with the “stages theory” and ended
      with the defence, as a matter of principle, of spontaneity, of the
      “full rights of the movement of the moment”, of
      “tactics-as process”, etc.)

Thiswas, indeed, a sad situation. It meant the emergence of aseparate trend, which is usually designated as Economism (in
	the broad sense of the word), the principal feature of which is its
	incomprehension, evendefence, of lagging, i.e., as we have
	explained, the lagging of the conscious leaders behind the spontaneous
	awakening of the masses. The characteristic features of this trend
	express themselves in the following: with respect to principles, in a
	vulgarisation of Marxism and in helplessness in the face of modern
	“criticism”, that up-to-date species of opportunism; with
	respect to politics, in the striving to restrict political agitation and
	political struggle or to reduce them to petty activities, in the failure
	to understand that unless Social-Democrats take the leadership of the
	general democratic movement intheir ownhands, they will never
	be able to overthrow the autocracy; with respect to tactics, in utter
	instability (last springRabocheye Dyelostood in amazement
	before the “new” question of terror, and only six months
	later, after considerable wavering and, as always, dragging along at the
	tail end of the movement, did it express itself against terror, in a
	very ambiguous resolution); and with respect toorganisation, in the failure to understand that the mass character of the
      movement does not diminish, but increases, our obligation to establish a
      strong and centralised organisation of revolutionaries capable of leading
      the preparatory struggle, every unexpected outbreak, and, finally, the
      decisive assault.

Againstthis trend we have conducted and will continue to conduct an
      irreconcilable struggle. The authors of the letter apparently belong to
      this trend. They tell us that the economic struggle prepared the ground
      for the workers’ participation in the demonstrations. True enough; but we
      appreciated sooner and more profoundly than all others the importance of
      this preparation, when, as early as December 1900, in our first issue, we
      opposed the stages

      theory,[See present edition, Vol. 4,
	pp. 366-71.—Ed.]

      and when, in February, in our second issue, immediately after the drafting
      of the students into the army, and prior to the demonstrations, we called
      upon the workers to come to the aid of the

      students.[Ibid.,
	pp. 414-19.—Ed.]

      The February and March events did not “refute the fears and alarms
      ofIskra”(as Martynov, who thereby displays his utter
      failure to understand the question, thinks—RabocheyeDyelo,
      No. 10, p. 53), but wholly confirmed them, for the leaderslagged
      behindthe spontaneous rise of the masses and proved to be unprepared
      for the fulfilment of their duties as leaders. Even at the present time
      the preparations are far from adequate, and for that reason all talk about
      “exaggerating the role of ideology or the role of the conscious
      element as compared with the spontaneous element, etc., continues to
      exercise a most baneful influence upon our Party.

Noless harmful is the influence exerted by the talk, allegedly in defence
      of the class point of view, about the need to lay less stress on the
      general character of discontent manifested by the various strata of the
      population against the government. On the contrary, we are proud of the
      fact thatIskrarouses political discontent among all strata of
      the population, and the only thing we regret is that we are unable to do
      this on a much wider scale. It is not true to say that in doing so, we
      obscure the class point of view; the authors of the letterhave not pointed to a single concrete instance in evidence of this, nor
      can they do so. Social-Democracy, as the van guard in the struggle for
      democracy, must (notwithstanding the opinion expressed inRabocheye
      Dyelo, No. 10, p. 41) lead the activities of the various oppositional
      strata, explain to them the general political significance of their
      partial and professional conflicts with the government, rally them to the
      support of the revolutionary party, and train from its own ranks leaders
      capable of exercising political influence upon all oppositional
      strata. Any renunciation of this function, however florid the phrases
      about close, organic contact with the proletarian struggle, etc., with
      which it may deck it self, is tantamount to a fresh “defence of
      lagging”, the defence of lagging behind the nation-wide democratic
      movement on the part of Social-Democrats; it is tantamount to a surrender
      of the leadership to bourgeois democracy. Let the authors of the letter
      ponder over the question as to why the events of last spring served so
      strongly to stimulate non-Social-Democratic revolutionary tendencies,
      instead of raising the authority and prestige of Social-Democracy.

Norcan we refrain from protesting against the astonishing
      short-sightedness displayed by the authors of the letter in regard to the
      controversies and internecine squabbles among the political exiles. They
      repeat the stale nonsense about the “indecency” of devoting toRabochaya Myslan article on Zubatov. Do they wish to deny that
      the spreading of Economism facilitates the tasks of the Zubatovs? In
      asserting this, however, we do not in the slightest “identify”
      the tactics of the Economists with those of Zubatov. As for the
      “political exiles” (if the authors of the letter were not so
      unpardonably careless concerning the continuity of ideas in the Russian
      Social-Democratic movement, they would have known that the warning about
      Economism sound ed by the “political exiles”, to be precise,
      by the Emancipation of Labour group, has been strikingly confirmed!), note
      the manner in which Lassalle, who was active among the Rhine workers in
      1852, judged the controversies of the exiles in London. Writing to Marx,
      he said:

“...Thepublication of your work against the ’big men’, Kinkel, Ruge,
      etc., should hardly meet with any difficulties on the part of the
      police.... For, in my opinion, the governmentis not averse to the publication of such works, because it thinks
      that ’the revolutionaries will cut one another’s throats’. Their
      bureaucratic logic neither suspects nor fears the fact that it is
      precisely internal Party struggles that lend a party strength and
      vitality; that the greatest proof of a party’s weakness is its diffuseness
      and the blurring of clear demarcations; and that a party becomes stronger
      by purging itself” (letter from Lassalle to Marx, June 24, 1852).

Letthe numerous complacent opponents of severity, irreconcilability, and
      fervent polemics, etc., take note!

Inconclusion, we shall observe that in these remarks we have been able to
      deal only briefly with the questions in dispute. We intend to devote a
      special pamphlet to the analysis of these questions, which we hope will
      appear in the course of six weeks.

[1]Yuzhny Rabochy(Southern Worker)—a
      Social-Democratic newspaper published illegally by a group of the same
      name from January 1900 to April 1903; altogether 12 issues appeared. The
      newspaper circulated chiefly among Social-Democratic organisations in the
      south of Russia.

Leninsaid of theYuzhny Rabochygroup that it was one of those
      organisations “which in words acceptedIskraas the guiding
      organ but in deeds followed their own particular plans and were
      distinguished for their instability on questions of principle”. The
      group existed until the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Subsequently the
      majority of the leading members of the group became Mensheviks.

[2]Zubatov—Colonel of the Gendarmes, tried to introduce
      “police socialism”. He set up fake workers’ organisations
      under the protection of the gendarmerie and the police in an effort to
      divert the workers from the revolutionary movement.